Bolden v. State
413 S.W.3d 658
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2008 Bolden was apprehended, bitten by a police canine, taken to the hospital restrained and disruptive; hospital security officer Monte Ruby intervened and later suffered fatal brain bleeding after being kicked by Bolden.
- Bolden was charged with second-degree felony murder and the predicate felony of assault on emergency personnel; jury convicted him of felony murder and assault on emergency personnel.
- Bolden filed a pro se Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to challenge that Ruby was not “emergency personnel” under §565.082.2.
- Trial counsel and appellate counsel each testified they reviewed §565.082.2 and concluded Ruby fell within the statute’s plain meaning as “emergency room or trauma center personnel.”
- The motion court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing; Bolden appealed asserting that Ruby was not covered by the statutory definition and counsel were therefore ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Monte Ruby was "emergency personnel" under §565.082.2 | Bolden: "Emergency personnel" must be medical personnel; Ruby was a security officer, not medical staff, so statute does not apply | State: §565.082.2 expressly includes "emergency room or trauma center personnel;" plain meaning covers hospital employees who assist in reception/treatment, including security | Court: Ruby qualifies as "emergency room personnel" under the plain meaning of the statute; counsel not ineffective |
| Whether trial/appellate counsel were ineffective for not challenging the assault charge or sufficiency of evidence | Bolden: Counsel should have moved to dismiss or argued insufficiency because Ruby was not within the statutory definition | State: Counsel reasonably concluded the statute’s plain language encompassed Ruby; any challenge would be meritless | Court: Counsel’s performance was reasonable; failing to raise a meritless claim is not ineffective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- State v. Bolden, 330 S.W.3d 868 (Mo. Ct. App.) (direct appeal affirming convictions)
- State v. Sharp, 341 S.W.3d 834 (Mo. Ct. App.) (statutory interpretation precedent discussed)
- Belcher v. State, 299 S.W.3d 294 (Mo. banc) (statutory construction and plain-meaning rule)